S. A. NUSRAT, J.-Leave is sought in this petition against the judgment of the High Court, dated 18- 10-1981 which was passed in the background of the following facts.
2. The petitioner is a claimant displaced person from a non-agreed area and after the verification of his claim, he was issued a Q. P. R. No. 1534/47, dated 30-4-1959 for 22,915 Produce Index Units (P. I.
U.), including 11,158 Chahi Units, by the Central Record Office, Lahore for Settlement at Hyderabad under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. He was allotted 522.241 acres of agricultural land from time to time up to 1960 out of which 222.11 acres was Flow land and 300.131 acres was Banjar Qadim.
The case of the petitioner was that the area of 522.241 was wrongly calculated at the rate of 40 P. I.
U. Per acre as if the entire area was Flow land although the area of 300.13-- acres Banjar Qadim and should have been calculated at 1/8th of the Flow land i.e. 5 P. I. U. Per acre in the light of Correction Slip No. 2 P-1, dated 15-8-1957. The total for both categories of land was 21,125 P. I. Us. But was wrongly calculated at 10,395 P. I. Us. Thus causing the petitioner. Loss of 10,730 P. I. Us. The petitioner further claimed that he was entitled to 10% extra allowance for 11,158 Chahi Units in pursuance of paragraph 26, Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme as no share in a well had been given to him and he was, therefore, entitled to extra 1,115 P. I. Us.
3. Pursuant to the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 84, on 28-12-1960, the petitioner submitted his entitlement under Q. P. R. For verification as the allotments were to be made on the basis of such entitle--ment. On 23-8-1961, Martial Law Regulation No. 84 was reconstituted as Martial Law Regulation No. 89 and slight modifications were further made on 25-9-1961 by Martial Law Regulation No. 91. On 29-12-1961, a scheme for surrendered land under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 was promulgated. The petitioner on the submission of his Q. P. R. For verification under the above-mentioned Martial Law Regulations received revised entitlement on 26-9-1961 for 4,042 P. I.
Us. Including 2,223 Chahi Units as per M. R. V. No. 3042/1-005122. A revised Khatoni was issued to the petitioner separately and adjustment of P. I. Us. Mentioned in his M. R. V. Was allowed against the allotments already held by him under his Q. P. R. The remaining excess land was allowed to be surrendered by the petitioner through option which was duly exercised by him. No extra allowance for Chahi units at 10 % was allowed to the petitioner although no Chahi land had been allowed to him.
4. In a nutshell the dispute concerns the calculation of the area of the land allotted to the petitioner and his grievance has been that the entire acreage was calculated at the rate of Flow land and the concession for Banjar Qadim was completely ignored in doing so.
5. On 5-12-1957, the petitioner filed application before the second respondent raising objection with regard to the calculations, which was dismissed on 24-1-1968. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the first respondent which too was dismissed on 29-6-1974. These orders were ultimately challenged before the learned High Court by means of a Constitu--petition Petition which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of the petitioner was liable to be satisfied in accordance with the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, read with Correction Slip No. 2 P. 1, dated 15-8-1957. According to learned counsel, since the land was allotted in 1960, the petitioner had acquired a vested right for the settlement of his claim on the basis of the scheme and the correction slip referred to above.
7. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a learned Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, Karachi Bench, in the case of Mst. Fidai Zuhra and others v. Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner (Land), Sukkur (PLD 1966 (W. P.) Kar. 79) and on an unreported judgment of the Sind High Court in the case of Hafiz Muhammad Yahya v.
Settlement Com--missioner and others (Petition No. 371 of 1965), decided on 16-6-1982. In both the above cases the question with regard to the calculation of P.I. Us. Was considered on the basis of Correction Slip No. 2 P. 1, dated 15-8-1957 and it was also held that the Correction Slip No. 4 P. 1, dated 9-1-1962 was not retrospective in operation. It was contended that the principle laid down in the above judgments was not correctly appreciated and followed in the impugned judgment. The contention noted above requires consideration and, we, therefore, grant leave to the petitioner.
8. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000. The appeal will be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to the additional documents, if any.